"The question of the relation of W.Q. Judge to Katherine Tingley
having been raised again, . . . search of the Point
Loma [Theosophical Society] archives brought to light all of the [relevant] documents.
. . and all of them [are] in Judge's own handwriting. . . ."

"I was furnished with photographs of most of these . . . [Judge]
documents. These I compared, with the assistance of old friends of Judge, with
unquestionably genuine and personal letters of Judge in their possession and in the
presence of a person expert in examining handwriting, and the unanimous conclusion
was that the documents were actually written by Judge. In the [O.E.
Library] Critic of September, October, November and December, 1932, I
discussed these manuscripts, especially those containing what Judge regarded as direct communications from the deceased H.P. Blavatsky,
in which a woman designated by a sign was spoken of in highly laudatory terms. The
special sign used [though there were others] consisted of three short nearly horizontal
lines crossed by a nearly vertical stroke. . . . In one case the three short horizontal
lines were used, the vertical stroke being omitted, presumably because of haste in taking
down the dictation, many other signs of such haste being in evidence. The complete
sign I have designated before and herein as "X", the incomplete sign being
herein designated by "Xb". . . . I reproduce here the passages of the
Judge scripts containing these signs, copied from the photographs before me:"
Bold added.

In the transcription below the original
signs (instead of "X") and (instead of "Xb") are used. Dr.
Stokes could not reproduce the original signs in his magazine. While on a research
trip in San Diego, I was shown photofacsimiles of some of these excerpts. They appeared to
be in Mr. Judge's handwriting. The originals of these documents are preserved in the
Archives of The Theosophical Society, Pasadena,
California.

"You can make
what you wish & the truthfulness of spirit and devotion to us will make useful. Keep
well in the background in outer work is our mystery."

"Our dear chela, you have at last found your chela who was one of
ours years ago
() consecrated to the work then &
by the will brought face to
face with you. is Raavais
linked with you in our work. As your light shines in upon her soul fears will
disappear as the dew before the sun."

"Jany 9, H.P.B.
No one I have met in the last 5 centuries has been qualified As I said is our mystery. is a mystery to .
. . ."

"We have . . . [now] the positive proof that the special
sign [] .
. . which was used by Judge in the script of his purported communications from H.P.B.
about the end of 1894 and beginning of 1895 was also used by him in addressing Mrs.
Tingley, that he knew at the time that it was Mrs. Tingley who was referred to, and that
the same sign was used by others in writing to Mrs. Tingley after Judge's death. . . .
Judge was receiving from some source what he regarded as communications
from H.P.B. endorsing Mrs. Tingley. . . but admonishing him to keep her 'in the
background in outer work'. This should afford a sufficient reason why she was not
mentioned by name in any discovered documents in his writing, even when quoting
H.P.B.'s 'communications' to others, as to Dr. Archibald
Keightley . . . . One has but to read between the lines of Judge's
letter to Mrs. Tingley. . . to sense the esteem in which he held her. . . ."

"To sum up:

"1. Judge received various communications supposed by
him to be from the spirit of H.P.B. endorsing a woman whom he designated by the sign []. . . . "

"2. Judge was in the habit of writing to Mrs. Tingley,
addressing her by the same sign [] . . . and this even before the date of the H.P.B. scripts. He must therefore have known that
H.P.B. was referring to Mrs. Tingley."

"In this and preceding articles I have been concerned with
the actual facts, not with theories as to what Judge might or should have done based on
preconceived views of his character, or whether the facts are consistent with his earlier
attitudes or writings. Theories must fit facts, not facts ignored to support
theories. Had Judge lost his grip and allowed himself to be imposed on by Tingley?
Was Crosbie, the third member of the U.L.T. Holy Trinity, the confidant of Judge,
and who was so sure Judge had appointed Tingley, fooled or lying? Or is it possible
that Tingley was far from being the scheming ogre that some [like certain U.LT. writers]
would represent her to be, and that Judge knew just what he was about in trusting her, and
that Crosbie was entirely familiar with this and approved of it? I am not going to
express an opinion, at least here, except to say very distinctly that charges of forgery,
or even vague insinuations such as have been made (Theosophy, Oct., 1933, page
572) reflect only on the character of the persons making them, unless backed by proof. . .
."

The evidence presented by Dr. Stokes refutes the charge and
insinuation made by John Garrigues and other U.L.T. writers that "the much-proclaimed
and never-produced 'private papers of Mr. Judge' bear a rather remarkable likeness to
'private notes' of Mrs. Tingley. . . [rather than] any documents in the handwriting of
William Q. Judge." SeeThe Theosophical Movement
1875-1925. In the 1951 edition of the U.L.T.
history, Henry Geiger dismissed Dr. Stoke's detailed presentation with only a few
comments.

Return to Table of Contents of H.N. Stoke's
"William Q. Judge and Katherine Tingley" series of articles